The satellite data is calibrated in the attempt to give an accurate measurement, but there is no guarantee that it is actually the most accurate since it is measuring through the atmosphere.

That's correct.

I feel that it is the most accurate dataset as of now, since the Surface Station datasets are still adding new stations to the datasets, which change the temperature anomalies.

You understand your feeling does not make it any more factual, right? A new station would change the temperature anomaly how much? The percentage increase in stations would have a very small impact on the average temperatures and thus the anomaly.

_________________With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none” Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."Albert Einstein

Abstract A possible long-term trend of the total solar irradiance could be a natural cause for climate variations on Earth. Measurement of the total solar irradiance with space radiometers started in 1978. We present a new total solar irradiance composite, with an uncertainty of ± 0.35 W m−2. From the minimum in 1995 to the maximum in 2002 the total solar irradiance increased by 1.6 W m−2. In between the minima of 1987 and 1995 the total solar irradiance increased by 0.15 W m−2.

So IRMB between SC 21 and 22 is -0.20 w/m^2-0.50 w/m^2 with a median range of 0.15 w/m^2. That is not "not increasing."

In addition, the power during SC 21 was lower for a significantly longer period of time than the power during SC 22, so that would also have implications on the increase between the minimas not mentioned in the abstract.

I take it that you have moved past the point of the minima increase originally mentioned to another diversion?

_________________With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none” Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."Albert Einstein

The claim was the minima increased, was it not? The graph has a nice little line that shows ONLY the ACRIM minima was above the line.

I take it that you have moved past the point of the minima increase originally mentioned to another diversion?

Yes, that's what I meant. The minima.

The peer reviewed statistical analysis of the IRMB dataset says that your eyeballing of the PMOD chart is dead wrong, and it is understandable, considering the units are closely packed to each other on the chart.

Now you need to admit that you were wrong when you initially said,

Quote:

If you look at the graphs the ACRIM is the ONLY composite showing that increase, which makes it less supported than you claim.

In a reply to me,

Quote:

TSI increased SUBSTANTIALLY between the minima of SC 21 and 22 on ACRIM

Instead of resorting to deflections.

_________________B.S. Meteorology and Atmospheric Science, The Pennsylvania State University, 2018M.S. Candidate Meteorology and Atmospheric Science, The Pennsylvania State University, May 2020

The claim was the minima increased, was it not? The graph has a nice little line that shows ONLY the ACRIM minima was above the line.

I take it that you have moved past the point of the minima increase originally mentioned to another diversion?

Yes, that's what I meant. The minima.

The peer reviewed statistical analysis of the IRMB dataset says that your eyeballing of the PMOD chart is dead wrong, and it is understandable, considering the units are closely packed to each other on the chart.

Now you need to admit that you were wrong when you initially said,

Quote:

If you look at the graphs the ACRIM is the ONLY composite showing that increase, which makes it less supported than you claim.

So you are telling us 0.15 W/m^2 is a SUBSTANIAL increase in the 1363 - 1368 range?You are also telling us this substantial increase in the minima you believe happened is supported by the IRMB? I am just unable to see that increase because the chart is too closely packed to see such a substantial increase?

Let me point out the situation a little more clearly using your information only:

In between the minima of 1987 and 1995 the total solar irradiance increased by 0.15 W m−2 (with an uncertainty of ± 0.35 W m−2).

This shows -0.20 - +0.40 is the uncertainty range.

The minima may or may not have increased at all, much less substantially according to this abstract.

Quote:

In a reply to me,

Quote:

TSI increased SUBSTANTIALLY between the minima of SC 21 and 22 on ACRIM

Instead of resorting to deflections.

Note that is referencing ACRIM and my reply was concerning IRMB, which supposedly also showed the "SUBSTANTIAL" increase, but the quote did not seem to indicate such a sustantial change.

I just did not understand your definition of "SUBTANTIALLY" could include 0.15 +0.35 compared to a cycle of 1.6 + 0.35. To me "substantially" would be over the range of uncertainty and "SUBSTANTIALLY" would be well over that range.

_________________With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none” Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."Albert Einstein

I was looking through some of Dr. Nicola Scafetta's work while I was browsing through his Widget, and I saw that he was part of the Active Cavity Radiometer Irradiance Monitor, which monitors TSI from the ACRIM satellite.

I googled it, and I found that this particular satellite showed an increase in the power of the TSI during the minimums associated with the 11 year cycles from Cycle 21 to 22. While the maximum power remained about the same, an increase in the power during the minimum could have TSI directly explain some of the warming that took place in the late-20th Century.

TSI then decreased, which is where ACRIM is in agreement with PMOD, probably contributing to the standstill in temperatures over the last 11 years.

In between the minima of 1987 and 1995 the total solar irradiance increased by 0.15 W m−2

Quote:

These discrepencies need to be resolved, before anyone can go saying that Man is responsible for most of the warming that took place over the late-20th Century, since we aren't even certain what the brightness variations in the sun were doing during this timeframe.

The discrepancy of an increase of ~0.5 in the 1360 range, of an increase in the 0.15 +0.35, which is <1/3 of the previous, or of a drop of ~0.1 in the 1365 range? The discrepencies of the range differences and the measurement error are more than the item you think should be resolved before anything can be stated.

_________________With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none” Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."Albert Einstein

So you are telling us 0.15 W/m^2 is a SUBSTANIAL increase in the 1363 - 1368 range?You are also telling us this substantial increase in the minima you believe happened is supported by the IRMB? I am just unable to see that increase because the chart is too closely packed to see such a substantial increase?

Let me point out the situation a little more clearly using your information only:

This shows -0.20 - +0.40 is the uncertainty range.

The minima may or may not have increased at all, much less substantially according to this abstract.

You're moving the goalposts.

Your original statement was that ACRIM was the only dataset that showed the increase, and now you're saying that a 0.15 w/m^2 increase between minimas does not count as an increase in TSI somehow?

In addition, your math is off. With a error range of +/-0.35 w/m^2, it would be -0.20 w/m^2-0.50 w/m^2. Not 0.40 w/m^2. So therefore, there is a 70% chance that the TSI increased between minimas.

I'd rather go with the chances of TSI increasing than TSI not increasing between the minimas of SC 21 and 22 on the IRMB dataset.

_________________B.S. Meteorology and Atmospheric Science, The Pennsylvania State University, 2018M.S. Candidate Meteorology and Atmospheric Science, The Pennsylvania State University, May 2020

During the ACRIM Gap when the major discrepency between IRMB, ACRIM, and PMOD occured due to different sets of data being used by different satellites by these major organizations, the GCR count decreased between 1989.5-1991.5 (The ACRIM Gap). This further validates the methods that ACRIM used, and the data that ACRIM used, because the irradiance showed an increase during the ACRIM Gap on the satellites that ACRIM used (ERB/NIMBUS7). This is because GCRs have an inverse relationship with Solar Activity, going up as Solar Activity decreases, and going down when it increases.

PMOD has a negative trend in irradiance during the ACRIM Gap, which contradicts the GCR data which shows the GCR count decreasing during the ACRIM Gap. This negative trend in irradiance during the ACRIM Gap is what gives PMOD its flat slope in TSI over the last 30 years.

_________________B.S. Meteorology and Atmospheric Science, The Pennsylvania State University, 2018M.S. Candidate Meteorology and Atmospheric Science, The Pennsylvania State University, May 2020

So you are telling us 0.15 W/m^2 is a SUBSTANIAL increase in the 1363 - 1368 range?You are also telling us this substantial increase in the minima you believe happened is supported by the IRMB? I am just unable to see that increase because the chart is too closely packed to see such a substantial increase?

Let me point out the situation a little more clearly using your information only:

This shows -0.20 - +0.40 is the uncertainty range.

The minima may or may not have increased at all, much less substantially according to this abstract.

You're moving the goalposts.

No, not at all.

Quote:

Your original statement was that ACRIM was the only dataset that showed the increase, and now you're saying that a 0.15 w/m^2 increase between minimas does not count as an increase in TSI somehow?

No, a POSSIBLE 0.15 w/m^2 increase, a possible decrease, or a change that is stastically insignificant from 0 does not count as an increase.

Quote:

In addition, your math is off. With a error range of +/-0.35 w/m^2, it would be -0.20 w/m^2-0.50 w/m^2. Not 0.40 w/m^2. So therefore, there is a 70% chance that the TSI increased between minimas.

I did mis-type the upper range, sorry. A chance the TSI increased is not the same as saying that it significantly increased. In fact, the odds are that the results are closer to the PMOD than the ACRIM if you want to go with probabilities. The upper range ~ meets the ACRIM level your link provided but the lower range goes below that of the PMOD your link provided.

Quote:

I'd rather go with the chances of TSI increasing than TSI not increasing between the minimas of SC 21 and 22 on the IRMB dataset.

I am sure you would, but that still does not support the claim of the significant level of increase nor does it address the much greater offset of the base ranges for the two composites.

_________________With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none” Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."Albert Einstein

During the ACRIM Gap when the major discrepency between IRMB, ACRIM, and PMOD occured due to different sets of data being used by different satellites by these major organizations, the GCR count decreased between 1989.5-1991.5 (The ACRIM Gap). This further validates the methods that ACRIM used, and the data that ACRIM used, because the irradiance showed an increase during the ACRIM Gap on the satellites that ACRIM used (ERB/NIMBUS7). This is because GCRs have an inverse relationship with Solar Activity, going up as Solar Activity decreases, and going down when it increases.

PMOD has a negative trend in irradiance during the ACRIM Gap, which contradicts the GCR data which shows the GCR count decreasing during the ACRIM Gap. This negative trend in irradiance during the ACRIM Gap is what gives PMOD its flat slope in TSI over the last 30 years.

I did not see the mention of the GCR evidence to support the increase, although I did see much lower confidence levels than you seem to have for this data.

From the conclusions in that paper:

We have reconstructed new TSI satellite composites by using the three ACRIMrecords and have shown that different composites are possible, depending onhow the ACRIM-gap problem from 1989.5 to 1992 is solved. Our three TSIcomposites indicate that the TSI minimum in 1996 is 0.30 # 0.40 W/m2 higherthan the TSI minimum in 1986. On the contrary, the two TSI minima in 1986and 1996 would be located at the same level only in the eventuality that the TSIERBS/ERBE satellite record is uncorrupted during the ACRIM-gap, a fact thathas been questioned by our analysis.

<snip>

None of the TSI satellite composites proposed by the ACRIM, IRMB, andPMOD teams can be considered rigorously correct. All three teams have justadopted alternative methodologies that yield to different TSI composites, butthese teams have also ignored the unresolved uncertainties in the data thatyields to an unresolved uncertainty in the TSI composites as well.

You will also note the claim in the paper concerning the inability to use models to determine the TSI in the gap, which is exactly what the "resolution" did and even used one of the models specifed as unsuitable.

_________________With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none” Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."Albert Einstein

I did not see the mention of the GCR evidence to support the increase, although I did see much lower confidence levels than you seem to have for this data.

Figure 8 is in the middle of the PDF file.

(Your quoted section from the paper)

Quote:

the two TSI minima in 1986and 1996 would be located at the same level only in the eventuality that the TSIERBS/ERBE satellite record is uncorrupted during the ACRIM-gap, a fact thathas been questioned by our analysis.

This is what I have been saying this entire time.

This is what PMOD has done in their TSI analysis. They have used ERBE Data during the ACRIM Gap, which has been shown to disagree with the GCR Counts and the higher quality NIMBUS7 and ERB data during the ACRIM Gap. This in turn has led to PMOD producing a flat slope in their TSI analysis.

_________________B.S. Meteorology and Atmospheric Science, The Pennsylvania State University, 2018M.S. Candidate Meteorology and Atmospheric Science, The Pennsylvania State University, May 2020

What do you consider to be a significant increase between the minimas of a Solar Cycle?

We'll go from there.

Something which is clearly an increase (i.e. above the measurement error bars) but three times the error range would be the normal minimum for a reportable point. Significant would be something in the range of >20% of the base measurement.

_________________With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none” Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."Albert Einstein

I did not see the mention of the GCR evidence to support the increase, although I did see much lower confidence levels than you seem to have for this data.

Figure 8 is in the middle of the PDF file.

Ahhh yes, I see it this time. Had a little more time to look too.

Here is what they say:

The cosmic ray count is negative-correlated to TSI and magnetic flux, and itsminima correspond to solar activity maxima. Fig. 8 shows that the minimumaround 1991.5 was lower than the minimum around 1989.8e1990.5. Thisimplies that according to this record, the solar activity was likely higher around1991.5 than around 1989.8e1990.5. This contradicts the pattern observed inERBS/ERBE and confirms the NIMBUS7/ERB pattern, as Fig. 5 shows.However, other solar indexes, such as the sunspot number index, present theopposite scenario. It is unlikely that solar proxy indexes can be used to definitelyand precisely solve this issue.

Quote:

(Your quoted section from the paper)

Quote:

the two TSI minima in 1986and 1996 would be located at the same level only in the eventuality that the TSIERBS/ERBE satellite record is uncorrupted during the ACRIM-gap, a fact thathas been questioned by our analysis.

This is what I have been saying this entire time.

No, it is not. You have claimed the record was corrupted and this statement indicates the question of corruption, which is significantly different. They allow for the eventuality of the record to be uncorrupted as an option.

Quote:

This is what PMOD has done in their TSI analysis. They have used ERBE Data during the ACRIM Gap, which has been shown to disagree with the GCR Counts and the higher quality NIMBUS7 and ERB data during the ACRIM Gap. This in turn has led to PMOD producing a flat slope in their TSI analysis.

And they also say the OTHER solar proxy indexes refute that correlation and that "it is unlikely solar proxy indexes can be used to definitely and precisely solve this issue" which leaves us with ACRIM showing a 0.3 +0.4 "increase", ICRMB showing a 0.15 +0.35 "increase", and PMOD showing no increase. Statistically these all seem to be the same since no trend can be determined because the measurements are so uncertain.

_________________With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none” Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."Albert Einstein

Something which is clearly an increase (i.e. above the measurement error bars) but three times the error range would be the normal minimum for a reportable point. Significant would be something in the range of >20% of the base measurement.

Okay, good. I'm glad we have something to go off of now.

Let's say this increase in TSI measured in IRMB/ACRIM could play a SIGNIFICANT ROLE in the recent Climate Change observed, especially since the Climate is sensitive to increased TSI.